AUDIO RECORDING: Danny Keith Martin — “I have a lot of loose ends, and people I got to kill first” – See bonus material at the end.
Black Sheep Whistleblower — August 21, 2026
I’m going to let Danny Keith Martin do a lot of the talking in this one.
The screenshots accompanying this article are Facebook posts published under Danny Martin’s name dared on or about August 19th 2026 so just a few days ago. I am including the screenshots so readers don’t have to rely on my interpretation of what Danny said.
Read his words yourself.
Then ask yourself a straightforward question:
Do these communications look like something that should simply be dismissed, or do they contain warning signs that deserve a serious threat and workplace-safety assessment?
I am not a psychiatrist, and I am not diagnosing Danny Martin with a mental illness based upon Facebook posts.
Nobody should.
But that’s not actually the important question.
The important question is whether Danny’s communications and documented behaviour, considered together with the history I have previously reported to police and my wife’s employer, provide legitimate reasons for concern about harassment, escalation and the possibility of an in-person confrontation.
In my opinion, they absolutely do.
And that brings me back to the question I have been asking for a long time:
Why wasn’t the harassment involving my wife and her workplace taken more seriously before now?
READ DANNY’S OWN WORDS
In one of these Facebook posts, Danny writes about Donald Smith:
“Yesterday derpy Donald said I killed a bunch of people which is again another lie.”
Danny then writes:
“Donald is still on probation conditions for previous harassment. I will be taking this the local police and dealing with him in the courts.”
For clarity, I have no basis from these screenshots to conclude that Danny has “killed a bunch of people.” Danny himself expressly denies that allegation.
But look at the atmosphere surrounding this dispute.
We’re talking about allegations concerning killing people, sexual predators, harassment, criminal behaviour, police, probation and court proceedings.
This isn’t two guys arguing over hockey.
And then we get to Danny’s second post.
“I WILL DEAL WITH HIM IN PERSON”
Danny published a lengthy numbered attack against Donald Smith.
Throughout it, he repeatedly uses an ableist slur while accusing Donald of sexual harassment, criminal behaviour, harassing women and other misconduct.
I am not adopting Danny’s allegations about Donald as facts. Those allegations belong to Danny, and Donald is entitled to dispute them.
But one passage jumps off the screen.
Danny writes:
“Retard broken into my home patio door while I was home to serve me court documents then ran to a waiting vehicle.”
He then writes:
“Retard sexually harrassed 4 women that I know then him and his druggie friends attacked the women online that rejected him. Retard is now targeting my daughter and I will deal with him in person.”
Read those final words again:
“I WILL DEAL WITH HIM IN PERSON.”
Those aren’t my words.
Those are Danny Keith Martin’s words in the screenshot.
DOES THAT MEAN DANNY IS THREATENING TO ATTACK DONALD?
Not necessarily.
Let’s be precise.
“I will deal with him in person” is ambiguous.
It could mean Danny intends to confront Donald verbally.
It could mean Danny intends to speak to him.
It could mean something entirely lawful.
Standing alone, I am not claiming that sentence establishes a criminal threat or proves that Danny intends violence.
But threat assessment isn’t supposed to look at one sentence while deliberately ignoring everything surrounding it.
Context matters.
Danny portrays Donald as somebody who has supposedly sexually harassed women.
He portrays him as a criminal.
He claims Donald came onto his property.
He claims Donald’s friends attacked women online.
And most significantly, Danny says Donald is now “targeting my daughter.”
Then Danny announces:
“I will deal with him in person.”
Does that prove Danny intends violence?
No.
Does it warrant attention when evaluating whether Danny might move an online dispute into the physical world?
I believe the answer is obviously yes.
NOW PUT MY WIFE BACK INTO THIS PICTURE
This is where these latest posts become particularly important to me.
Danny Keith Martin has not merely had an Internet disagreement with me.
My wife has been dragged into this situation.
Her workplace has been dragged into this situation.
Communications connected to this ongoing dispute have reached her at work.
And that means the issue should never have been reduced to:
“Danny has free speech.”
Of course people have freedom of expression.
That doesn’t answer the workplace-safety question.
The relevant question is:
IS THERE A FORESEEABLE SAFETY RISK THAT SHOULD BE ASSESSED?
Those are completely different questions.
Someone doesn’t have to commit a crime before an employer can take reasonable precautions to protect its employees.
And somebody certainly shouldn’t have to walk through the front door before an employer begins thinking about what should happen if they do.
DANNY HAS PREVIOUSLY TOLD ME HE WAS COMING TO SEE ME (AT OUR HOME ADDRESS THAT HE POSTED ON SOCIAL MEDIA ALONG WITH A PHOTO OF OUR HOME)
There is more context here that needs to be considered.
Danny has previously sent me emails indicating that he was coming to see me soon.
I also possess audio recordings in which Danny talks about coming to “get” me.
To date, Danny has not shown up and confronted me personally.
That fact should be acknowledged.
But does the fact that he hasn’t shown up yet prove that he never will?
Of course not.
More importantly:
DOES ANYONE KNOW THAT HE WON’T SHOW UP AT MY WIFE’S WORKPLACE?
I don’t.
Her employer doesn’t.
The police don’t.
Nobody does.
That’s exactly why risk assessment exists.
It isn’t about predicting the future with certainty.
It is about evaluating known information and determining whether reasonable precautions should be taken before something happens.
THEN THERE IS WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR HOME
This context becomes even more serious because my family’s experience is no longer limited to online harassment.
Our home was firebombed in January 2026.
That happened.
My family lived through it.
I have also previously reported what I believe was a plot to murder me before Christmas 2025.
I have alleged that Danny was connected to individuals involved in the events surrounding those matters and that he was a co-conspirator in the alleged murder plot against me.
Let me be extremely clear about the distinction:
I am not representing Danny’s involvement in either the firebombing or the alleged murder conspiracy as a judicially established fact.
Those are serious allegations that I have made and that I believe should be investigated based upon the evidence.
Whether Danny bears criminal responsibility for anything is ultimately a matter for police, prosecutors and the courts.
But here’s the point people keep missing:
THREAT ASSESSMENT IS NOT A CRIMINAL TRIAL.
Police and workplace officials don’t need a criminal conviction before information becomes relevant to evaluating someone’s potential risk.
If authorities have been provided with reports concerning threats, harassment, escalating communications, alleged conspiratorial activity and subsequent real-world violence against the complainant’s home, that history should form part of the overall picture.
You investigate the information.
You assess its credibility.
You determine the risk.
You don’t simply throw it away because nobody has yet been convicted.
THERE IS ALSO DANNY’S HISTORY INVOLVING WOMEN
There is another aspect of this that I believe deserves serious scrutiny.
I have personally spoken with women who have described being subjected to harassment by Danny Martin.
I also understand that there are court proceedings and orders involving Danny and women he has contacted extending back more than a decade in Alberta and British Columbia.
I understand that certain orders have restricted contact with particular individuals and that allegations have subsequently arisen concerning breaches of those restrictions.
Where those matters can be established through court records, I intend to publish the relevant records so readers can examine the evidence themselves.
That’s important because there is a distinction between what somebody tells me and what a court record actually establishes.
Court orders, judgments, convictions and findings can be verified.
Allegations should remain identified as allegations unless the records prove them.
But if there is a documented history of court-imposed restrictions concerning contact with women, then surely that history becomes relevant when another woman reports unwanted conduct involving the same individual.
And in this case, that woman happens to be my wife.
NOW READ DANNY’S NEWEST WORDS AGAIN
Put the pieces together.
Danny has previously communicated to me about coming to see me.
I possess an audio recording in which Danny talks about coming to “get” me.
My wife and I have previously complained about his conduct.
Communications have reached my wife’s workplace.
I say there is a lengthy history involving other women that can be examined through court records.
Our family home was subsequently firebombed.
I have made serious allegations concerning an earlier murder plot and Danny’s alleged connection to individuals involved.
And now Danny publicly writes about another person:
“Retard is now targeting my daughter and I will deal with him in person.”
None of that proves Danny is going to commit an act of violence.
I am not saying that it does.
But how much information needs to accumulate before somebody says:
Maybe we should conduct a serious risk assessment here?
“BUT HE HASN’T SHOWN UP AT HER WORKPLACE”
Is that seriously supposed to reassure anybody?
Do we wait until someone physically arrives?
Do we wait until someone is standing in a parking lot?
Do we wait until somebody walks through the front door?
And then declare:
Okay, NOW we’ll assess the risk?
That’s backwards.
According to Danny’s own Facebook account, he believes another person already took an online dispute into the physical world by coming to Danny’s residence.
Whether Danny’s allegations about Donald are true is something I cannot establish from these posts.
But Danny himself plainly believes these disputes can cross from the Internet into real life.
Then Danny writes:
“I will deal with him in person.”
So here’s my question:
WHY SHOULD ANYONE AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME DANNY WOULD NEVER TAKE A DISPUTE INVOLVING ME OR MY WIFE INTO THE PHYSICAL WORLD?
I’m not saying he will.
I’m saying nobody responsible for workplace safety should simply assume he won’t.
THIS IS WHY “FREE SPEECH” DOESN’T END THE DISCUSSION
Canada’s criminal-harassment provisions can encompass repeated direct or indirect communications, watching or besetting someone’s home or workplace, and threatening conduct directed toward someone or their family where all of the statutory requirements are established.
That doesn’t mean every offensive Facebook post is criminal harassment.
It isn’t.
It doesn’t mean every nasty email constitutes a crime.
It doesn’t.
And it doesn’t mean:
“I will deal with him in person”
automatically constitutes an offence.
What it means is that the totality of conduct matters.
Speech can be lawful while simultaneously being information relevant to assessing risk.
Those concepts aren’t mutually exclusive.
The question for police is whether evidence establishes an offence.
The question for workplace-safety officials is different:
Does the available information indicate a risk that needs to be assessed and reasonably managed?
SO WHAT DID MY WIFE’S EMPLOYER ACTUALLY DO?
This is where I want answers.
I am deliberately not identifying my wife’s employer in this article.
This isn’t about embarrassing her workplace.
It’s about protecting my wife and other people who work there.
So I want to know:
What risk assessment was conducted concerning Danny Keith Martin and the communications involving my wife at her workplace?
What information was considered?
Were Danny’s previous communications reviewed?
Were the emails in which he indicated he would come see me considered?
Were the audio recordings considered?
Was the history of our previous complaints considered?
Were the circumstances surrounding the firebombing of our home considered?
Was law enforcement consulted?
Were appropriate workplace security personnel informed?
Was my wife provided with a safety plan?
Were appropriate reception or security personnel provided whatever information a legitimate risk assessment determined was necessary?
And most importantly:
IS THERE A PLAN IF DANNY ACTUALLY SHOWS UP?
That isn’t paranoia.
That isn’t retaliation.
And it isn’t an accusation that Danny definitely intends to go there.
It’s workplace-safety planning.
LOOK AT THE SCREENSHOTS YOURSELF
That’s why I’m publishing Danny’s Facebook posts with this article.
Don’t rely solely on what I’m telling you.
Look at them.
Read the language.
Look at the fixation.
Look at the accusations.
Look at the hostility.
Look at the escalation.
And especially look at Danny’s own statement:
“Retard is now targeting my daughter and I will deal with him in person.”
Then ask yourself a simple question.
If you were responsible for protecting an employee whose workplace had already been dragged into an ongoing harassment dispute involving this person, would you simply assume there was zero possibility that he might someday appear there?
I wouldn’t.
THIS IS ABOUT PREVENTION, NOT PREDICTION
Nobody can responsibly determine from Facebook posts whether Danny Keith Martin is psychiatrically “stable.”
That’s a medical determination, and I’m not making it.
Nobody can responsibly predict with certainty that Danny will become violent.
I can’t.
But nobody should pretend they possess certainty in the opposite direction either.
Nobody can guarantee that Danny won’t show up.
Nobody can guarantee that his statement about dealing with somebody “in person” is meaningless.
Nobody can guarantee that previous statements about coming to see me or coming to “get” me will always remain words.
That’s why the correct response isn’t prediction.
IT’S PREVENTION.
Preserve the communications.
Document the history.
Verify the court records.
Listen to the recordings.
Examine the previous complaints.
Assess the credibility of the allegations.
Consider what happened afterward.
Conduct a proper risk assessment.
And take whatever reasonable precautions that assessment supports.
Because:
“He hasn’t done it yet” is not a threat assessment.
“It’s just Facebook” is not a threat assessment.
“It’s free speech” is not a threat assessment.
And waiting until somebody physically arrives at a workplace before asking whether there were warning signs defeats the entire purpose of prevention.
These screenshots don’t prove Danny Keith Martin is going to hurt anybody.
They don’t prove he will ever go near my wife’s workplace.
But they add another piece of information to a much larger history that, in my opinion, demands serious examination.
These are Danny Keith Martin’s posts.
These are Danny Keith Martin’s words:
“I will deal with him in person.”
Now the people responsible for assessing safety can decide what those words mean in the context of everything else they have been told.
And if they decide there is no meaningful risk, then I want to know something very simple:
WHAT IS THAT CONCLUSION BASED ON?
Because my wife shouldn’t have to find out the answer by seeing Danny Keith Martin walk through the door.
Stay tuned.
BONUS — DANNY MENTIONS RUBY: THERE IS MORE TO THIS STORY plus an AUDIO RECORDING: Danny Keith Martin — “I have a lot of loose ends, and people I got to kill first”
There is one more detail in Danny Keith Martin’s August 19, 2026 Facebook post that deserves attention.
Danny mentions Ruby Dechambre by name.
He writes:
“Of course Ruby is not and has never been a sex worker.”
Well, readers of Black Sheep may remember that Ruby’s connection to Danny has come up before.
A lot more before.
🔑 THE RUBY DECHAMBRE CONNECTION
On December 10, 2025, I published an extensive article documenting what I believe is the significance of the relationship and connections involving Ruby Dechambre and Danny Keith Martin.
Here is the full article:
🔑 The Ruby Dechambre Connection: How One “Key” Exposed a Hidden Network — plus a breakdown of Ruby Dechambre’s role, the GPS-“key” event, and her connection to Danny Keith Martin and the FreedomAccountability Facebook page.
But here’s where this becomes considerably more serious.
🎧 LISTEN TO DANNY’S OWN RECORDED WORDS
Ten days later, on December 20, 2025, I published an audio recording involving Danny Keith Martin.
The title tells you exactly why I considered it significant:
BLACK SHEEP AUDIO RECORDING: Danny Keith Martin — “I have a lot of loose ends, and people I got to kill first”
Here is the audio, transcript and accompanying article:
The published transcript records Danny discussing looking for his friend’s house in Vietnam before saying:
“But I have a lot of loose ends, and people I got to kill first.”
Immediately afterward, he is asked whether Jessica and Drover are on that list.
Danny’s recorded response is:
“I can’t say.”
The article subsequently identifies the “friend in Vietnam” as Ruby Dechambre.
I am not asking anyone to accept my interpretation of that conversation.
Listen to the recording yourself. Read the transcript yourself. Consider the context yourself.
And I am not claiming that the statement, standing alone, proves Danny literally intended to kill anyone. The meaning and seriousness of recorded words have to be evaluated in their full context.
But now compare December 2025 with August 19, 2026.
DECEMBER 2025:
“I have a lot of loose ends, and people I got to kill first.”
AUGUST 19, 2026:
“I will deal with him in person.”
And in that same August Facebook post, Danny once again brings Ruby into the story.
That’s why these aren’t words that I believe should simply be shrugged off when assessing risk.
Read the posts. Listen to the audio. Review the emails. Examine the chronology.
Then ask the question that matters to this entire article:
DOES THIS HISTORY WARRANT A SERIOUS THREAT AND WORKPLACE-SAFETY ASSESSMENT?
I believe it does.
Not because I can predict what Danny Keith Martin will do.
I can’t.
But because when someone has previously been recorded using language about having “people I got to kill first,” has communicated with me about coming to see me, and subsequently publicly says he intends to deal with another person “in person,” those communications deserve to be preserved, contextualized and assessed rather than dismissed.
And that’s exactly why I keep asking:
What happens if one day “in person” means showing up at somebody’s workplace?
That’s a question I would much rather have answered before anyone ever has to find out.
BONUS RECEIPTS — READ AND LISTEN FOR YOURSELF:
The Ruby Dechambre Connection — December 10, 2025:
https://blacksheepwhistleblower.com/2025/12/10/%f0%9f%94%91-the-ruby-dechambre-connection-how-one-key-exposed-a-hidden-network-plus-a-clear-forceful-breakdown-of-ruby-dechambres-role-the-gps-key-even/
Danny Keith Martin Audio Recording — December 20, 2025:
https://blacksheepwhistleblower.com/2025/12/20/black-sheep-audio-recording-danny-keith-martin-i-have-a-lot-of-loose-ends-and-people-i-got-to-kill-first/
Those are the receipts. Readers can make up their own minds.
Leave a Reply